Commonwealth v. Sawyer

• Decision Date: 22 October 1886
• Citation: 142 Mass. 530,8 N.E. 422
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. SAWYER and others.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

142 Mass. 530

8 N.E. 422

COMMONWEALTH v. SAWYER and others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 22, 1886

COUNSEL

Corcoran & Parker, for defendants.

In order to convict of the full charge in the indictment, it was incumbent on the government to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants severally knew that the said Parmenter was an officer, and that he was, at the time of the assault, "in the due and lawful execution of his office." It cannot follow as a warrantable conclusion of fact that the defendants knew Parmenter's official character because they had lived in the town many years, knew him, and were known by him. The circumstances, taken together, giving them their reasonable and just weight, and no more, should to a moral certainty exclude every hypothesis of innocence. Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 319. There must have been evidence, direct or circumstantial, within the limitations of the rule above cited, showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a knowledge on the part of the defendants of the official character and acts of Parmenter. Want of this kind of evidence could not be supplied by inference or conjecture. Com. v. Mason, 12 Allen 186.

E.J Sherman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

The evidence was ample to sustain the instructions given by the presiding judge. Com. v. Kennedy, 136 Mass. 152; Com. v. Cooley, 6 Gray, 350; Com. v Hurley, 99 Mass. 433.

OPINION

GARDNER J.

The bill of exceptions does not state that Appleton D. Parmenter the officer assaulted, was a constable. The indictment alleges that he was a constable; and, if such officer, he must have been elected at the annual town meeting. Pub.St. c. 27, § 78. It appears by the bill of exceptions that he was appointed a special police officer of the town, among other things, for the surveillance of the hotel of Sydney L. Liscomb. If he was a constable, he acquired no additional authority from his appointment as police officer; for such officer may have any or all the powers of constables, except the power of serving civil process. Pub.St. c. 27, § 83. If Parmenter was a constable, the jury might infer, from the time and manner of his election, and from the fact that the defendants had lived in the town many years, and knew Parmenter and Brewer, and were well known by them, that Parmenter was a constable, and, from the other evidence reported, that he was in the lawful execution of his...